Tuesday, May 03, 2016

The Secret Masters of Fandom are retreating to what appears to be the science fiction community's one and only tactic even before they see the effects of their first round of rules changes. From a Facebook discussion:

Kevin Standlee
A factor regarding invoking the convention Code of Conduct against Griefers (I'm looking at Christopher J Garcia and Sean Wallace in particular) and disqualifying their ballots and revoking their memberships that only came to me this morning:

The current Worldcon in Kansas City does have the right to regulate its own membership. They could, if they so choose, decide to revoke the memberships of individuals for just about any reasons unless it was prohibited by law. So in theory they could revoke the memberships of individual members who they believed were violating their Code of Conduct by the way they cast their Hugo Award nominating ballots.

However, what about the members of the Spokane and Helsinki Worldcons? All of their members as of January 31, 2016 were also eligible to nominate. Kansas City is obliged to honor those nominations as part of the WSFS Constitution, which is the "contract" under which MidAmeriCon II was granted the right to hold the 2016 Worldcon. MAC2 does not have jurisdiction over the memberships of the 2015 and 2017 Worldcons. They don't have the right to revoke the memberships of members of either of those two conventions. If, as seems likely to me, most of the Griefers are coasting along on the memberships they bought to Sasquan, MAC2 doesn't seem to me to have the right to ignore those persons' votes -- not unless they could somehow get the legal remnant of the 2015 Worldcon committee to revoke those persons' memberships.

Yes, I know I'm being legalistic. That's what I do. Throwing out the rule of law just because you don't like how some people voted is IMO giving the Griefers exactly what they want -- a plausible legal excuse to hammer the Hugo Awards and Worldcon with. They're trying to goad us into an extra-legal response.

David Dyer-Bennet
Lacking the Arisians to identify and certify a reliable supply of "philosopher kings", I think rule of law is our best choice, however annoying some of the intermediate steps may be.

Christopher J Garcia
It's not about the votes - it's about the use of the Hugos as a platform for a hate group..

Kevin Standlee
You'd need to withdraw the nominating rights from the previous/subsequent years' members in order to give a single legal entity (the current Worldcon) the right to revoke the memberships (and thus not count the ballots) of the people you consider unworthy of voting, for whatever reason, including being part of what you've decided is a hate group.

Christopher J Garcia
It's not about the voting. It's allowing members of a hate group (and the Rabid Puppies qualify as such under the SPLC, ADL, and FBI definitions) to opperate within the awards. We are implicitly accepting their presence by not acting to remove them.

Kevin Standlee
No. You are only a member of WSFS for the current "Worldcon Year," which runs from end of Worldcon to end of Worldcon. There are, however, residual rights that attach to past and future Worldcons of which you may be a member.

Kevin Standlee
I don't dispute that there is a de facto hate group acting here. What I'm saying is that while an individual Worldcon may choose to revoke the memberships of its members for any non-prohibited-by-law reason, they cannot IMO legally revoke. Incidentally, one of the "residual rights" is to inspect the accounts of the Worldcon of which you were a member. The "sunshine clause" is rarely invoked, but it is in there.

Christopher Carson
It's not about the votes, it's not about the nominations — so you're mad at an abstract concept?

Michael Lee
I could make the case that the code of conduct applies to all participants in an activity of a particular convention, and that the nomination phase is an activity not of three conventions, but of one particular convention, so that individual convention's code of conduct would apply. And it is the responsibility of an individual convention to administer the Hugo Awards.

Kevin Standlee
Michael Lee I can see your point; however, I can also see that if I were a member of the previous Worldcon who had my vote tossed by the current Worldcon, I would have standing to sue to the current Worldcon for failing to abide by the terms of their contract (the WSFS Constitution).

Kevin Standlee
Codes of conduct aren't mentioned in the WSFS Constitution, so it's unclear just how much any one convention's CoC can have jurisdiction over another convention's members. In particular, look at this section of the WSFS Constitution:

Section 1.6: Authority. Authority and responsibility for all matters concerning the Worldcon, except those reserved herein to WSFS, shall rest with the Worldcon Committee, which shall act in its own name and not in that of WSFS. And that seems to me to give a Worldcon to regulate its own members, but not any other convention's members.

Linda Deneroff
I thought well prior to 2012 the WSFS Constitution permitted the prior year's worldcon members to nominate, but back before computers it was nearly impossible to make it practical or viable.

Kevin Standlee
Prior years' members have been eligible to nominate since 1989. The subsequent year's members were only extended the nominating privilege effective in 2012 (ratified in 2011).

Christopher Hensley
Which is why I am a little miffed at Sasquan. They actually had the power to do it, but they did not.

Linda Deneroff
20-20 hindsight is wonderful.

Christopher Hensley
To be fair, they are doing exactly what they said they would do since the nominating period opened last year.

Aaron Kashtan
Wouldn't it be better to create a rule that the current Worldcon can, at its discretion, reject any Hugo nominee that threatens to bring the Hugos or Worldcon into disrepute? Like the rule that caused the rejection of the name Boaty McBoatface? I'm sure this idea has been suggested before.

Kevin Standlee
Such a rule would be legal, but it does not currently exist. And beware of rules that can be turned against you. However, if you want help crafting such a rule, contact me directly and I'll help you write it. Convincing two consecutive WSFS Business Meetings to vote for it would be your problem.

Richard Man
I think any NEW rule, would not help for 2016 (and of course not 2015) due to the ratification requirements. I think the WSFS charter founders are pretty crafty in makes things fairly democratic, within the limits of the charters. They just never expected influential arseholes.

Christopher Carson
Pretty sure fandom has never been short of "influential arseholes".

Richard Man
... but ones that screw up the Hugos two years in a year ;-P?

Kevin Standlee
WSFS rules are designed with an assumption that people will act in good faith.

I've repeatedly said that WSFS operates much like the USA did for the first twenty years after it declared independence. The manifest flaws of the Articles of Confederation led to the adoption of the current much-stronger Constitution of 1787. But it took several years for that to happen, too, and the challenges facing the young USA were a lot worse than a bunch of bad actors trolling a literary award.

Dave O'Neill
I don't think anybody expected any of the individual arseholes to actually have followers.

Kevin Standlee
True. And most of the individuals within Worldcon-attending fandom have been prepared to play within the _spirit_ of the rules as well as its letter. Heck, there were a couple of "puppy" sympathizers at the 2015 WSFS Business Meeting.

Dave O'Neill
I can assure you that his motion would have failed. There was no way it was going through. But yes, I recall him well. I also recall all the people of the opinion that this was a 'one off' and we shouldn't do anything as they'll get bored.

Kevin Standlee
That was only the second time that I've seen Adjourn moved in its debatable form in any situation other than routinely at the end of a day or of the session. The first time was when I made it myself many years ago (L.A. con III, as I recall) because I thought the people present didn't want to go in to the nitty-gritty of a complex report I was presenting and wanted to put it off until the next day. I was wrong.

Mike Glyer
This kind of tortured logic undermines the much needed benefits of Codes of Conduct. Beware.

Christopher Hensley
The move away from a pure legalistic approach represents a major shift in the community over the last few years.

Kevin Standlee
Understood about the beware. Any committee wanting to invoke their Code of Conduct in this situation would have to consider balancing the harm done to itself by Griefers against the potential harm of dealing with a lawsuit from them.

Christopher Hensley
I also worry about the opposite. That they will try to nominate a work that while protected by the absolute speech protections inherent in US will run afoul libel or hate crime laws outside of it. If nothing else it would kill the packet, or require saying "we refuse to distribute this". Possibly even cause problems with advertising the finalists. A certain title which make accusations about John Scalzi come to mind.

Kevin Standlee
Funny thing, that. Imagine such a case next year, in which Finnish and EU law applies. IMO, the committee would be totally justified in disqualifying such a work, because local law always trumps the WSFS Constitution.

Mike Glyer
It's reasonable to anticipate that they will keep moving down the continuum, finding more transgressive works to nominate. They would do it anyway, and if EPH is effective in limiting their impact, would want to devote the slots they get to items that ...

Kevin Standlee
Me, too, and it was one of the reasons I didn't like trying to invoke it as a legitimate reason to disqualify nominations, members, or finalists.

Christopher Hensley
There are two questions in my mind. One are their actions, which are clearly an ongoing campaign of harassment. The other is the works themselves. It should be a much higher bar on that but not an impossible one. What happens when they nominate non-fiction works which promote violence against LGBT persons, racial minorities or Muslims?

Dave O'Neill
Surely the administrators have some wiggle room in those situations? If not then there does need to be a disrepute clause brought in.

Kevin Standlee
I don't really see much room for maneuver by the Administrators. Every individual natural person is eligible to become a member by existing rules.

Dave O'Neill
I was thinking more if somebody nominated a hardcore porn SF parody or similar? Rather than dealing with members - I was under the impression the administrators had the final word in eligibility?

Christopher Hensley
Tingle's stuff is more performance art then porn parody. He has a following that loves his over the top antics and hopelessly positive message. But yes, Tingle is absolutely backfiring on Day. He'll say it was his plan all along but it is stealing his spotlight.

Dave O'Neill
well, I wasn't actually thinking of Tingle then as, yes, it's part of a gag. I was thinking more of a "Game of Boners" type stuff.

Mem Morman
What's a "Griefer"?

Kevin Standlee
The people wanting to destroy the Hugo Awards by nominating a slate that includes a fair number of obviously awful things. In effect, the Rabid Puppies.

Dave O'Neill
Somebody who deliberately tries to spoil things for other players.

Dave O'Neill
Although I really think the Chuck Tingle thing is going to backfire spectacularly on Ted.

Christopher Hensley
"Griefing" originally a video gaming term referring to players who kill their own teammates in multiplayer.

Kevin Standlee
I like how it can be easily mistaken as Grifters, which seems appropriate to me given their Sooper Genius Evil Overlord.

Alfred Kruse
"And so it begins..."

Covert J Beach
I would consider canceling memberships based on nominations for the Hugo to be the Nuclear Option. I think this becomes a slippery slope to the point where the Cure will be worse than the Disease. This idea is another version of Strong Administrator, and should be invoked as a last resort and only in desperation. In theory bad ideas should be trampled in the free marketplace of ideas. The Griefers as you refer to them have found a mechanical way to make the marketplace less free (by packing the limited number of nominations.) Even if we can agree that this group needs to be dealt with, there comes the future time where someone with a hot button gets to make a well intentioned call that blows up in the convention's face. The solution is to free up the marketplace of ideas. EPH+6/4 or Semi-final voting do this.

What I find so interesting about the SJW-SF reaction is that they simply never stop to question their basic assumptions or the effectiveness of their tactics. This all started when Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, appropos of a single syndicated op/ed column about Susan Estrich's attack on Michael Kinsley, broached the possibility excluding me from the Nebula jury back in 2005. Then Patrick Nielsen Hayden and John Scalzi joined forces to force the SFWA Board to exclude me in 2013 by threatening to quit, after which the Hugo voters did their best to exclude me in 2014.

How has that worked out for them?

The SJWs in science fiction couldn't imagine that we would take over the 2015 nominations. They were highly confident that we couldn't dominate the nominations this year. And I have no doubt that they are absolutely certain we can't possibly take over the Business Meeting.

Want to bet the Hugo Awards on that?

Go ahead, Secret Masters, make a special rule aimed at me and the Rabid Puppies a legitimate tactic at my disposal if you dare. This is your fair warning.

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt

Here is the relevant clip from the movie:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM

I did notice some real spiffy racial theorizing up in that exchange of ideas betwixt real geniuses. Just my opinion, but I would say that is a weak spot, if anyone would like to exploit that. I know unheard of in respectable conservative circles.

worldcon, comicon, sci-fi... Gads, won't some people ever grow up?I mean really... throwing your "power" around to control a bunch of nerds who want to awards each other for stuff they do? shouldn't the winners of these Hugo Awards get their ass kicked?!

Perhaps I am wrong for my opinion and attitude towards this. But come on people. Forcing your world view and politics and your enforcement of this shite upon people in this fantasy world? This disgust I feel is absolutely overwhelming.

While I don't support or oppose sad puppies or rabid puppies, I never was one to join clubs or whatever this is. I absolutely loathe these leftist yahoos who think they have power and tell you and others what they can or can't do. Can't someone just tell them fuck off and go pound sand in their ass?!

Bloody idiots. Can't they see they're walking into a trap? Into a valley that has steep walls, rimmed with archers? Vox has obviously planned the next move out - the line of attack is obvious to anyone who's paid attention for the last year - and is about to crush them like an empty beer can.

They have a fascinating definition of freedom. "Freedom" apparently means that other people are "free" to take actions they like. "They have made the marketplace of ideas less free." I can't get anywhere close to understanding the contorted thinking necessary to say something like that to describe the current situation.

"In theory bad ideas should be trampled in the free marketplace of ideas. The Griefers as you refer to them have found a mechanical way to make the marketplace less free (by packing the limited number of nominations.)"

VD, as a dedicated wargamer you must find the strategical/tactical elements of dealing with these fools, well, boring. How do you maintain focus while playing on a "casual" setting?

I think you would be amazed at how little time I spend thinking about this. Those who are aware of my other projects know that I simply don't have time for it. I had to be reminded to post a recommendation list this year.

But it makes for easy and entertaining blog posts. I'll probably spend more time preparing questions for Steve Keen than I've spent on the Hugos total in the last year, even if you include the nomination Brainstorm.

I've seen multiple instances of this Chuck-Tingle-is-backfiring-on-Vox thing, so it seems it's something that is actually widely believed. But how? I mean, maybe it's more something they have to tell themselves psychologically than a genuine belief, but still, it seems so completely and utterly backwards that I really want to know... what are the reasons they're giving? How the hell are they rationalizing it?

If they're complaining about the Tingle nomination, and it sounds like they are, since I barely follow this aside from Vox's posts, it must be that it really does cause them serious cognitive contortions.

> The SJWs couldn't imagine that we would take over the 2015 nominations. They were highly confident that we couldn't dominate the nominations this year. And I have no doubt that they are absolutely certain we can't possibly take over the Business Meeting.

I'm pretty sure they were confident we'd get tired after last year and give up. They have absolutely no concept of what they're dealing with.

I'm no strategist, and I'm having a hard time seeing all the options available to us. The lawsuit is obviously not the way to go. I don't even know how one would get in the board. Nominating and voting has worked well so far, but that plan will only work for so long without internal intervention.

You are too fair, Supreme Dark Lord. Warning shots are the work of civilized men. I was under the impression that your Eminency was an Indian.

They sure do love our money though, don't they? The background that they don't mention is that in order to alter their own rules in a failed attempt to advance an SJW implosion of the Hugos, is that they have to somehow refund around $40,000+ that they don't have to do it. That's not counting the attendees...

1. SJWs always lie. To preserve the narrative that allows them to feel good about themselves, they must lie. In this case, they don't have very many usable options, and so they must believe in the ridiculous.

2. SJWs always project. They crave attention, therefore Vox must be upset that a nominee is getting more attention.

I get what ya'll are doing. While I agree with it, I don't do clubs. Anti-social type. I don't have anything against sci-fi or comicons. I do have issues with people that want to control these things and their out comes. One person that comes to mind is John Scalzi. Or whatever that little weasels name is. I do applaud your efforts and I see every month you gain steam in the momentum. One thing that would turn me against the movement you and a few others have started would be that once you achieved victory, you went and did the samething as the SJW's and rule over your little fiefdom with your own political agenda. Personally, I don't see how that doesn't happen. Human nature to want to keep the SJW's from getting back in the game once they have conceded defeat.

These people are nitwits who know nothing about lawsuits. I haven't mentioned this before, but these clowns disabled my account before I had finished nominating...."technical" problem, they claimed. If I sued them in Pima County, AZ, for fraud most likely, it would cost them thousands of dollars just to defend the lawsuit, while it would cost me only the filing fee.

I suspect their next step is to start building an actual Black List of Rabid Puppies.

Legally questionable but it's their idea of the Nuclear Option because challenging us directly is simply not an option for them. They are women and men that think like women. All decisions must be made by non-confrontational group consensus.

If you cannot confront, you must exclude.

If exclusion fails, we've won. If they can make exclusion stick, Larry Correia wins big time.

The irony of Dave O'Neill's comment:[a griefer is] "Somebody who deliberately tries to spoil things for other players."says someone in the middle of a long discussion about how they can continue to ruin SF for anyone that isn't sufficiently in their own camp socio-politically for their own comfort....

To wanna be moderates, focus on this sentence:" Throwing out the rule of law just because you don't like how some people voted is IMO giving the Griefers exactly what they want -- a plausible legal excuse to hammer the Hugo Awards and Worldcon with." SJWs don't care about maintaining the rules as they exist (many of which they have created) so much as they care about how the abridgement can come back to haunt them. TL;DR all of it, but didn't notice much concern about maintaining the rules themselves because they are equitable and not arbitrary. SJWs cannot be bargained with because they won't keep to their end of the bargain.

One of the chief strategies in any insurgency is to force your opponent to enact a regime of incompetent repression. This limits their options, increases polarization and further discredits them.

The left are masters at subverting systems..but they have little experience in how to protect their own systems from being jammed and fucked with and one can see it in their hamfisted response to puppies.

If I were a gambling man, I'd put a few bucks on SRBI winning the award due to SJWs voting for it after deluding themselves with twisted mind games. This "stealing the spotlight" gibberish isn't any more absurd than "if WE vote for Chuck Tingle, then it's OUR victory, not Vox's!" And they're already trying to say Tingle being nominated isn't a big enough win for us because they love Tingle too...

If exclusion fails, we've won. If they can make exclusion stick, Larry Correia wins big time.

I'd say that Correia as already won. His contention was that the Hugo's were being controlled by a handful of insiders that were giving it to each other based on political considerations instead of literary merit.

James Dixon wrote:> The SJWs couldn't imagine that we would take over the 2015 nominations. They were highly confident that we couldn't dominate the nominations this year. And I have no doubt that they are absolutely certain we can't possibly take over the Business Meeting.

I'm pretty sure they were confident we'd get tired after last year and give up. They have absolutely no concept of what they're dealing with.

This is fun. I put very little effort into it, and get a lot of great amusement out. I make a point to read all that I nominate, so that is already a sunk cost.

- We have a parody of a GOD AWFUL piece of work that won a HUGO.- Vox wrote about what he was going to nominate. - People *of their own accord* nominated Tingle for an award. Not one single person was forced to do so.- Tingle is nominated.- People all over the media start writing about Tingle.- Tingle graciously accepts and trolls his detractors. The worst I've seen slung at the Rabid Puppies is:

"Unbeknownst to Lance, his space travels have been funded by the villainous Scoundrels Inc, a corporation that has deep ties to the illegal trade of unicorn tears and a destructive mining project at the core of the earth. Now Lance is on trial for a number of false charges; from having connections to the wicked Scoundrels, to being too strange for space.

The opposing lawyer argues that space is only for serious astronauts, and that love between a raptor and a man is giving space travel a bad name. Lance is arguing that there’s room to be weird in space. More importantly, Lance is arguing for the idea of love itself; that just because something comes out of darkness doesn’t mean it can’t become a beacon of light. "

From where I'm sitting having the media about Space Raptor Butt Invasion in serious fashion is a win. What normal person will take the 'respectable HUGO' seriously after a few years of this?

What crime has Vox committed other than writing about how he will vote? It's not like a single person here was forced to vote that way. It's not like the powers that be have never done that. They need to ask themselves why SO MANY people are willing to pay $50 to piss in their cornflakes. Or not.

Their way forward is clear. Get a government body associated with the EU to declare Castalia House a badthink hate speech group. Then get the Hugos to throw out any ballots that were working in accord with said hate speech group. Re-announce the new noms.

Unfortunately, there's a chance (remote that it may be) that this time next year Europe won't be allowing the proudly-savage to enter their borders, even if it's to virtue signal science fiction rightthink.

What will WorldCon do then!?!

Slammed in the butt by European Nationalism after a century of being slammed in the butt by Globalists who promoted getting slammed in the butt by barbarian invaders.

Featuring: Charlemagne and other buckaroos who get HARD AS ROCKS against the devilman agenda funded by the scoundrel money.

Concede defeat? You actually think there is a possibility of them conceding defeat? Have you been paying attention?

Possibility? Sure I think there is a possibility. After all I am human. I can admit when I was wrong.. I have done as much. Also, I know when I have lost a contest of some type. Time to move on.

They will never concede defeat. You're assuming they think like you. They do not think like you. They're parasites, they can't afford to admit defeat.

I will concede this point. I admit you well could be right. Time will tell. I probably am making the mistake to assume all people think like humans. Maybe I don't think like a human? Who knows for sure, eh?

They need producers to go along with them, to accept their frame. Producers do not need them.

Aye, I do agree with you.

I bet you think pure unrepentent evil doesn't exist either.

Yes I do actually. I just didn't think it is/was possible for them to be human. Is it? (I ask because I have been known to be naive in the past.)

So if you want an award to be decided by the masses instead of someone who can just give "scholorhips" to crack hoes you are a griefer.

Note that lamestream is sure carrying on this story with pics of a white marine who died trying to stop a (turns out to be black) active shooter, to bad they don't cover all the times guns save lives from blacks.

The Griefers as you refer to them have found a mechanical way to make the marketplace less free

Before puppies it would have been numerically possible to buy yourself an award for $2,000, well actually buy yourself awards in multiple categories.

You don't roll around in your pick-up truck beating up immigrants and gays?

You should see what sorts of things happed to them at my place.

They need to ask themselves why SO MANY people are willing to pay $50 to piss in their cornflakes

Even Baltimore's black tranny crack hoes can afford the equivalent of 5 packs of cigs.

Starbuck, it helps to realize that humans don't always think in similar patterns. That's one of the thing Vox discusses frequently over at Alpha Game: how the Gamma mind works. Being of a more feminine biological structure, the Gamma brain and mind is utterly foreign to non-Gamma males and disturbingly uncanny to women (women like men with masculine minds and behaviors; Gammas are just creepy, incomplete imitations of women).

What you're seeing is a live demonstration of what happens when Gammas are allowed into a position of authority.

It's a constant circle jerk of virtue signaling, so they constantly double down because they want to shirk responsibility and signal to the other rabbits how such good little progressives they are.

Incidentally, that's part of why our society seems to have accelerated its slide into collective insanity. SJWs are now the establishment. So you have endless catfights over virtue signaling, and each SJW tries to out-signal the others by doubling down even harder, screeching even louder than the ones before them.

And what we are doing here is sticking a pole into the rabbit warren to stir them up into a frenzy where they end up eating their own babies. It's fun. :)

I really don't see why they are so afraid of their rules being turned against them. Surely they can devise an effective set of anti-griefing rules when they've got brilliant game designers like Zoe Quinn on their side.

I was thinking more if somebody nominated a hardcore porn SF parody or similar?

Wonder what his stance was on giving a Grand Master Award to Samuel R. Delany?

- People *of their own accord* nominated Tingle for an award. Not one single person was forced to do so.

- Tingle is nominated.

- People all over the media start writing about Tingle.

- Tingle graciously accepts and trolls his detractors...

From where I'm sitting having the media about Space Raptor Butt Invasion in serious fashion is a win. What normal person will take the 'respectable HUGO' seriously after a few years of this?

What crime has Vox committed other than writing about how he will vote? It's not like a single person here was forced to vote that way. It's not like the powers that be have never done that. They need to ask themselves why SO MANY people are willing to pay $50 to piss in their cornflakes. Or not.

And as they write about SRBI they can't help but bleed over into a couple other topics. Already Vox Day and SJWAL were Actually Named by Actual Name in the papers, though they haven't quite noticed the elephant just yet.

People *of their own accord* nominated Tingle for an award. Not one single person was forced to do so.

No puppies got put on the watch lists, doxxed, swatted, or banned for not voting correctly, either.

Cataline Sergius wrote:The only way they can win at this point is if we give up and go away.Well, theoretically they could grow up, have a laugh, say "good one, well done!" and go on as if it weren't a world-shattering crisis of Olympian butthurt.

This episode falls in line with my own profiling of the typical leftist (Every leftist I have ever had interaction with was an SJW). I did this over ten years ago on Cuck Hannity's forums.

There are five main traits of the SJW/leftist.

1) Pathological Liar2) Narcissist3) Hypocrite 4) Sociopath5) Coward

The true nature of the leftist/SJW is contrarian. This is why they sided with the Communists during the Cold War, with the North Vietnamese, with Islam, and why they are forcing everyone to let perverts pee with their wives and daughters.

JAG's law of SJW/Leftist talking points - any two SJW/Leftist talking points will meet in hypocrisy. Example; those who don't buy into the obvious scam of climate change are labeled science deniers, but these same will use their super doublethink powers to turn right around and tell you that XY chromosomes is female.

It is NOT hyperbole, in my opinion, to conclude that these people are insane.

The nomination of Chuck Tingle's work is . . . how to put this in strategic terms . . . a useful distraction, an amusing feint. Let the SJW's obsess, pose, and preen all they wish on SRBI. Let them vote en masse for it. They still have to deal with the Best Related Works category and the potential blowback from "no awarding" exposes about pedophilia in Fandom, should they go that route. One Scenario: Tingle wins. Moira Greyland gets silenced by Noah Ward.

James Dixon wrote:I'd love to see them trying to prove either of those in a court of law. In fact, claiming such is probably libel itself.As soon as I saw this thread I was thinking "injunctive relief". We prohibit them from attempting to enforce their CoC and de-fang them totally. This also prevents them from alleging violations of the CoC to remove Puppies from the convention to keep them from voting at the business meeting.

Kevin Standlee seems to understand that once you allow the term "hate group" anywhere near the rules things will inevitably proceed towards white males being effectively considered a hate group with all the consequences this entails, but the rest of the participants do not.

pyrrhus wrote:These people are nitwits who know nothing about lawsuits. I haven't mentioned this before, but these clowns disabled my account before I had finished nominating...."technical" problem, they claimed. If I sued them in Pima County, AZ, for fraud most likely, it would cost them thousands of dollars just to defend the lawsuit, while it would cost me only the filing fee.Its good to have friends in low (desert) places

I’ve been clicking thru all the “thoughts on the Hugos” posts and for all the gloating over Jemisin’s nomination, I haven’t seen one that talks about having read it. Anyone else seen anything different?

And the schizophrenia over SRBI is comedy gold. LOOK WHAT THEY NOMINATE! Oh, wait it’s…. Uhh, ignore what I posted, I, I…

It seems if they really wanted to stop us they could limit voting to attendees. But, given the low attendance numbers they probably can't afford that. Plus, if they did that the Hugo could never be called a fandom award. does Dragoncon have awards? Dragoncon is much bigger than worldcon, right? Like, 10 times as big?

That's a good list of attributes. I've long been convinced that the "point and shriek" mob psychology of the standard SJW derives from their resentment at their individual impotence.

The SJW instamob having demonstrated to itself its power by disemploying a Nobel prize winner or Silicon Valley CEO, each and every one of its members receives a vicarious thrill from the illusion of having some power over other people. People they naturally resent for those people's success and the powers they possess as individuals.

The SJWs can never be honest with themselves about this psychopathology, of course, and hence SJWs First Law. So it all has to be cloaked in a lot of bullshit about how they're "saving the planet" and building a better world.

I don't think that packing a Business Meeting will get the job done, for at least two reasons.

One, the discussion quoted in this post seems to be leading to a rule like this: "When processing Hugo nomination ballots, the seated Worldcon committee may disqualify any ballot which, in their opinion, contains any violations of rules of behavior which they have adopted." If that rule is enacted, anyone who wants to either use that rule against his enemies, or prevent it being used against his friends, must control the committee of the administering Worldcon, and must hold that control during the time that Hugo nomination ballots are being tallied and nominees are being determined. All of which happens several months before the Worldcon begins.

Two, as Standlee has remarked to me when discussing parliamentary procedure, "The only defense against a rogue chairman is to walk out." Meaning, if we do mob a business meeting where he is the chair, we can expect him simply to ignore (in parlimentese, "refuse to recognize") anyone who wants to speak unless he knows those people are on his own side. Even extreme measures such as appealing a ruling of the Chair can only be done if the Chair allows the person making the motion to speak.

What I think we need to do, instead, is to reframe the discussion. We are not a "hate group"; rather, the movement that opposes us is the same kind of petty partisan exclusionism that was attempted at the very first Worldcon, and which fandom quite rightly rejected afterward.

Indeed, we might want to propose a rule at this year's Business Meeting which would forever ban any such exclusionism, and to that end, would require a supermajority vote to kick anybody out of any Worldcon activity.

Milo will wear a $10,000+ outfit to a place women will toss fake menstrual blood, I would wear a Luchador mask to garrote moslems with a rainbow feather boa, with paracord strands treaded in, on live TV if they have been given a death penalty. Ann Coulter said she would kill the moslem child rapers if there are no real men to do it, and I can take care of the rest.

Starbuck,If you are doing nothing and achieving nothing and helping nothing, other than waste the time of people who ARE by having them read your nothing words, get the fuck out of the road or get steamrollered along with the SJWs. We don't do moderates who shoot in our trenches.

133. pennyworth May 03, 2016 2:42 PMVox has stated a policy that he moderates his blog, so statements like BGKB's, if posted to this blog and left undeleted, can be used in US courts as proof that this is a hate group.

you fucking moron.

BGKB is short for 'Big Gay Koran Burner'. also known as 'Big Gay Steve'.

when Steve makes allusions to the things he "does" to them at his place, he's implying homosexual acts OF LOVE.

I think these folks have utterly failed to correctly appraise the Tingle Situation.

1) It doesn't matter if Tingle "sides" with any faction or who accepts the award on his behalf. The entire point is how the book itself demonstrates how much of a sham the Hugos have become to anyone NOT in one of the existing factions.

2) This is particularly true of the Quinn Scenario - no one but people already either for or against her have heard of her, because she is simply not famous for anything other than being "patient zero of Gamergate", as she puts it. But that's not a position anyone should want to defend if it comes down to it, considering she walked her claims back when in front of a judge and later dropped them altogether in the face of an appeal.

To every non-Puppy/non-CHORF looking at the Hugos, all that's happening is Space Raptor Butt Invasion taking a big prize home, held aloft by a dyed-in-the-wool Tumblrina.

For those of you a tad younger than I am, the Great Exclusion happened at WorldCon One (1939), and excluded a bunch of members of the Futurians from attending. You can read about them in recent issues of The National Fantasy Fan, magazine of the National Fantasy Fan Federation (founded 1941) at N3F.org. The recent coverage was written by Jack Robins, who until his death last winter was the next-to-last living Futurian.

Among the excluded were Donald A. Wollheim, Frederick Pohl, and Robert A. W. Lowndes.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.